Grand Marais wraps up Comprehensive Plan for the holidays, or does it?

Goodness gracious, what a flap when City Council voted 3 to 2 last week not to allow 2nd floor residential in downtown commercial except for owners and employees.
In a letter to the News Herald today, Todd Miller accused the council of betraying a public trust. Mayor Larsen said after the vote that she was concerned that the 30 foot height limit might be the next to go if 2nd floor residences become common and that there is little enough commercial space and commercial parking as it is.
As we all know, if there is a way for developers to go bigger they will find it. So how does this betray any trust at all? The vote was very much in keeping with the spirit of the Comprehensive Plan, both this one and the previous one but you would have thought the Decider was at work to nuke Iran.
Worse in my view is the slant; well let’s say it, LIES in Miller’s letter. The only True thing he said is that 2nd floor residential was listed as part of the consensus goals created after the first round of public meetings. But, it turned out not to be such a consensus after all, with only 42 percent of survey respondents in favor. In the US of A, even when 99 percent of voters feel a certain way that doesn’t change the decisions made by the Decider who is guided by a Higher Power. As for 42 percent being a consensus, it is not even a simple majority. So much for the “very unpopular” current zoning policy, and the “overwhelming” conclusion of the visioning process.
True says: Get your facts straight if you are going to spout off against your elected officials who have done great things so far to keep Grand Marais vital and sustainable for years to come.
Where was Miller when the previous council was selling the town off to the highest bidders, all outside developers; giving away the harbor to the DNR in the vain hope of making it another Bayfield and getting rid of the campground for parking; trying to derail the conservation easements created to protect the harbor; changing zoning without even a public process in order to open downtown to McCondos … does any of this ring a bell?
Personally, like a large proportion of people in the survey, I don’t care one way or the other about 2nd floor residential downtown but I find Mayor Larsen’s reasoning thoughtful and compelling.
I am sorry that a few loudmouths were able to make everybody change their vote this week for what are all the wrong reasons, including the conflict of interest by Councilor Kennedy who owns a downtown business and had no business voting at all.
There are very good reasons, both pro and con, on this issue. Pro is that a mixed character helps to vitalize a downtown area and THIS was the point of consensus in the comprehensive plan. Con include the need for one to two parking spaces per unit, fire code safety issues, sound proofing and conflicting interests like bar patrons and sleepers. Safety and soundproofing could be addressed in new construction but are problematic with existing structures. The council considered all of these factors but only included parking provisions in the reversal vote Wednesday.
While I’m not saying it is necessarily a bad decision, it was made hastily under pressure by a few special interests.
True